COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EN EN EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 6.8.2008 SEC(2008) 2375 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL RESIDUE MONITORING PLANS IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2006 (Council Directive 96/23/EC) EN EN

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL RESIDUE MONITORING PLANS IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2006 (Council Directive 96/23/EC) The aim of this document is to summarise the actions taken in the Member States as a consequence of the non-compliant results found in food of animal origin through the implementation of Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products during 2006. A summary report, including a compilation of the results obtained in the Member States in 2006, broken by food commodities (bovines, pigs, sheep and goats, horses, poultry, aquaculture, milk, eggs, rabbit meat, farmed game, wild game and honey) and groups of substances (hormones, corticosteroids, beta-agonists, prohibited substances, antibacterials, other veterinary medicinal products, other substances and contaminants) is attached to this document ( Report for 2006 on the results of residue monitoring in food of animal origin in the Member States ). EN 2 EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction... 4 2. Actions taken as a consequence of non-compliant results... 5 2.1. Sampling as suspect... 5 2.2. Modifications of the national plan for 2007... 6 2.3. Other actions taken as a consequence of non-compliant results... 6 Annex I: Report for 2006 on the results of residue monitoring in food of animal origin in the Member States (SANCO/1313/2008)... 7 Annex II: Modifications of the national residue plan for 2007 and other actions taken as a consequence of non-compliant results... 48 EN 3 EN

1. INTRODUCTION Council Directive 96/23/EC 1 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products requires Member States to adopt and implement a national residue monitoring plan for specific groups of residues. Member States must assign the task of co-ordinating the implementation of the controls to a central public department or body. This department is responsible for drawing up the national plan, co-ordinating the activities of the central and regional departments responsible for monitoring the various residues, collecting the data and sending the results of the surveys undertaken to the Commission each year. The Directive lays down specific sampling levels and frequencies, as well as the groups of substances to be monitored for each food commodity. Commission Decision 97/747/EC 2 lays down additional rules for milk, eggs, honey, rabbits and game. National monitoring plans should be targeted: samples should be taken with the aim of detecting illegal treatment or controlling compliance with the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for veterinary medicinal products set out in Annexes I and III of Council Regulation (EC) 2377/90 3, the maximum levels for pesticides set out in Annex II of Council Directive 86/363/EEC 4 or the maximum levels laid down in relevant legislation on contaminants. This means that in the national plan the Member States target the groups of animals/gender/age combinations where the probability of finding residues is the highest. This approach is different from random sampling, where the objective is to gather statistically significant data, for instance to evaluate consumer exposure to a specific substance. Member States must forward annually to the Commission the national monitoring plans, together with the results of their residue monitoring for the previous year, by 31 March at the latest. The Directive lays down a procedure by which the plans are approved on a yearly basis. This procedure involves the Member States. As laid down in Article 8 of Directive 96/23/EC, the Commission has to report to the Member States, within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, the outcome of the checks carried out, in particular on the implementation of the national plans and on the development of the situation in the various regions of the Community. To this end, the Commission has summarised the results of the national residue monitoring plans for the year 2006. Trends within the European Union are also indicated by comparison with the 2004 report. 1 2 3 4 OJ L 125, 29.4.1996, p. 10-24 OJ L 303, 6.11.1997, p. 12-15 OJ L 224, 18.8 1990, p. 1 OJ L 221, 7.8.1989, p. 43 EN 4 EN

This summary of results of the national monitoring plans,, was presented to the Member States within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 22 April 2008 (Summary report 2006/ SANCO/1313/2008-Annex I) 2. ACTIONS TAKEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF NON-COMPLIANT RESULTS In accordance with Article 8 of Directive 96/23/EC, the Member States were requested, as a follow-up, to provide information on actions taken at regional and national level. The objective is to provide an overview of actions taken as a consequence of non-compliant 5 results for residues of non-authorised substances or when the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established in EU legislation are exceeded. In order to collect information on actions taken as a consequence of noncompliant results, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Member States. These actions could be divided into the following three groups: 2.1 Sampling as suspect 2.2 Modifications of the national plans for 2007 2.3 Other actions 2.1. Sampling as suspect Suspect samples are defined as: 1) samples taken as a consequence of non-compliant results on samples taken in accordance with the monitoring plan (Article 5 of Directive 96/23/EC); 2) samples taken as a consequence of possession or presence of prohibited substances at any point during manufacture, storage, distribution or sale throughout the food and feed production chain (Article 11 of Directive 96/23/EC); 3) samples taken where the veterinarian suspects or has evidence of illegal treatment or non-compliance with the withdrawal period for an authorised veterinary medicinal product (Article 24 of Directive 96/23/EC). In summary, this means that the term suspect sample applies to a sample taken as a consequence of: non-compliant results and/or suspicion of an illegal treatment at any stage of the food chain and/or 5 Non-compliant results correspond to the presence of a prohibited substance or to the presence of an authorised substance above the maximum level allowed in the legislation. EN 5 EN

suspicion of non-compliance with the withdrawal period for an authorised veterinary medicinal product. 2.2. Modifications of the national plan for 2007 The national residue monitoring plan aims at detecting illegal treatment of foodproducing animals, controlling compliance with the maximum residue limits for veterinary medicinal products, the maximum residue levels for pesticides and the maximum levels for contaminants. Non-compliant results for a specific substance/group of substances or a specific food commodity should result in intensified controls for this substance/group or food commodity in the plan for the following year. 2.3. Other actions taken as a consequence of non-compliant results Article 16 and Articles 22-28 of Directive 96/23/EC prescribe a series of actions (other than modifications of the residue monitoring plan) to be taken in the case of non-compliant results or infringements: 1. To carry out investigations in the farm of origin, such us verification of records and additional sampling. 2. To hold animals in the farm as a consequence of positive findings. 3. To slaughter animals in case of confirmation of illegal treatment and to send them to a high risk processing plant. 4. To intensify the controls in the farms where non-compliant results were found. 5. To impound carcasses at the slaughterhouse when non-compliant results have been found. 6. To declare the carcasses or products of animal origin unfit for human consumption. The changes introduced by some Member States for the 2007 plan together with the responses of the Member States in relation to this type of actions are summarised in Annex II to this document. EN 6 EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate E Safety of the Food Chain E3 - Chemical contaminants and pesticides ANNEX I SANCO/1313/2008 Report for 2006 on the results of residue monitoring in food of animal origin in the Member States Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel Office: B 232-4/43. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 2959663. Fax: (32-2) 2991856. E-mail: Ana-Maria.Blass-Rico@ec.europa.eu EN 7 EN

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. COUNTRY CODES... 9 2. LEGAL BASIS... 10 3. MAIN FINDINGS IN 2006... 12 4. BOVINES, PIGS, SHEEP AND GOATS, HORSES AND POULTRY... 14 4.1. PRODUCTION AND PERCENTAGE OF TARGETED SAMPLES: BOVINES, PIGS, SHEEP AND GOATS, HORSES... 14 4.2. PRODUCTION AND PERCENTAGE OF TARGETED SAMPLES FOR POULTRY... 15 4.3. NON-COMPLIANT RESULTS... 16 4.3.1. HORMONES... 16 4.3.2. CORTICOSTEROIDS... 19 4.3.3. BETA-AGONISTS... 20 4.3.4. PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES (A6)... 21 4.3.5. ANTIBACTERIALS... 23 4.3.6. OTHER VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (B2)... 27 4.3.7. OTHER SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS (B3)... 29 4.3.8. OVERALL DISTRIBUTION OF NON-COMPLIANT RESULTS IN THE EU BOVINES, PIGS, SHEEP, GOATS, HORSES, POULTRY... 32 5. ANIMAL PRODUCTS... 34 5.1. AQUACULTURE... 34 5.2. MILK... 36 5.3. EGGS... 38 5.4. RABBIT MEAT... 40 5.5. FARMED GAME... 42 5.6. WILD GAME... 43 5.7. HONEY... 45 Annex 1: ANNEX I TO DIRECTIVE 96/23/EC EN 8 EN

1. COUNTRY CODES AT BE BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR DE GR HU IE IT LV LT LU MT PL PT RO SI SK ES SE NL UK Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovak Republic Spain Sweden The Netherlands United Kingdom EN 9 EN

2. LEGAL BASIS The aim of this report is to summarise the results of the national residue monitoring plans during the year 2006 in the Member States. This report includes for the first time the data obtained in Romania and Bulgaria. Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products states that Member States should draft a national residue monitoring plan for the groups of residues detailed in its Annex I 6 in accordance with the sampling rules and levels referred to in Annex IV of the Directive. The Directive lays down sampling levels and frequency, as well as the groups of substances to be monitored for each food commodity. Decision 97/747/EC 7 lays down additional rules for certain animal products: milk, eggs, honey, rabbits and game. National plans should be targeted to take the following minimum criteria into account: sex, age, species, fattening system, all available background information and all evidence of misuse or abuse of substances. Member States should forward to the Commission the results of their residue monitoring by 31 March of each year at the latest. Additionally, suspect samples may also be taken as part of residue control. Suspect sample applies to a sample taken as a consequence of: non-compliant results suspicion of illegal treatment suspicion of non-compliance with the withdrawal period for an authorised veterinary medicinal product What does non-compliant result mean? Commission Decision 2002/657/EC 8 concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of the results lays down rules for the analytical methods to be used in the testing of official samples and specifies common criteria for the interpretation of analytical results. Since the entry into force of Decision 2002/657/EC (1 September 2002), the correct term for those analytical results exceeding the permitted limits (in previous reports termed 6 7 8 Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC lists the groups of substances to be covered by residue monitoring. It is presented in Annex 1 to this report for ease of reference. OJ L 303, 6.11.1997, p. 12-15 OJ L 221, 17.8.2002, p. 8-36 EN 10 EN

positives ) is non-compliant. A non-compliant result means that the result has a sufficient statistical certainty and can be used for legal purposes 9. Legal basis for permitted limits For veterinary medicinal products, maximum residue limits (MRLs) are laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 10. For pesticides, MRLs are laid down in Directive 86/363/EC 11. Maximum levels for lead, cadmium and mercury are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 12 and its amendments. For contaminants where no EU maximum levels had been fixed at the time of the collection of these samples, national tolerance levels were applied. Minimum Required Performance Limits (MRPLs) Annex to Commission Decision 2002/657/EC: means minimum content of an analyte in a sample, which at least has to be detected and confirmed. It is intended to harmonise the analytical performance of methods for substances for which no permitted limit has been established. MRPLs for chloramphenicol, nitrofurans metabolites, medroxyprogesterone acetate 13 and malachite and leucho malachite green 14 have been established so far. 9 10 11 12 13 14 As laid down in Article 6 of Decision 2002/657/EC, the result of an analysis shall be considered non-compliant if the decision limit of the confirmatory method for the analyte is exceeded. Decision limit is defined in Article 6(3) as the lowest concentration at which the method can confirm with a defined statistical certainty (99 % for substances for which no permitted limit has been established, and 95 % for all other substances) that the particular analyte is present. OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1 OJ L 221, 7.8.1986, p. 43-47 OJ L 37, 7.2.2002, p. 4-6 OJ L 71, 15.3.2003, p.17 OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p.38 EN 11 EN

3. MAIN FINDINGS IN 2006 This report includes for the first time results from Bulgaria and Romania after their accession in 2006. Altogether, around 687 445 targeted samples (439 445 samples for all groups + 248 000 for inhibitor tests in Germany) and 52 000 suspect samples were taken in all Member States in 2006, i.e. 707 163 targeted samples (456 163 samples for all groups+ 251 000 for inhibitor tests) and 73 000 suspect samples in 2005. For hormones (stilbenes, steroids, thyrostats and zeranol derivatives), 0.18 % of the samples taken in bovines were found to be non-compliant (0.13 % in 2005) and 0.09% in pigs, compared to 0.44% in 2005. The number of non-compliant results for corticosteroids in bovines continue increasing for the targeted sampling, from 60 target and 126 suspect in 2005 to 74 targeted and 95 suspect in 2006; dexamethasone was the most frequently found substance for corticosteroids. For Beta-agonists, the incidence of non-compliant results decreased from 0.08 % in 2005 to 0.06%. However in 2005 only 2 Member States have reported non-compliant results for betaagonists compared to five Member States in 2006. All non-compliant results were for clenbuterol except for 85 findings for salmeterol reported by NL after suspect sampling. For prohibited substances, the percentage of non-compliant results decreased from 0.07 % in 2005 to 0.06 % in 2006 in bovines. In pigs the percentage of non-compliant results for A6 was 0.07% (0.05 % in 2005). Some non-compliant results were still found for chloramphenicol in different food commodities: bovines: 9 targeted; pigs: 13 targeted and 1 suspect, poultry: 11 targeted, sheep: 3 targeted, aquaculture: 1 targeted, milk: 4 targeted and 1 suspect, rabbit: 4 suspect and honey 1 target; for Nitrofurans clear decrease compared to 2006, poultry: 3 targeted, aquaculture 1 targeted and honey 1 targeted. And for nitroimidazoles also decrease: pigs: 2 targeted and 1 suspect; poultry: 1 targeted, aquaculture: 1 targeted. The percentage of non-compliant results for antibacterials has increased from 0.20 % in 2005 to 0.30 % in 2006. 67 % of non-compliant results found in the meat were found in pigs. In terms of number of non-compliant results antibacterials remains the main problem for meat (bovines, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and rabbits) and for milk, rabbit meat and honey. For veterinary medicinal products, in bovines most of the non-compliant results were for antiinflammatory drugs such as dexamethasone (same as in 2005), which has a MRL for meat, liver and milk but can also be used illegally as a growth-promoting agent. Additional investigations should be carried out when detecting residues in order to rule out that its presence is due to the illegal use as an anabolic substance. There were also some non-compliant results for non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs: phenylbutazone, flunixin meglumine and tolfenamic acid in bovines, diclofenac in pigs, phenylbutazone in horses, sodium salicilate in poultry, metamizole in farmed game and flunixin and sodium salicylate in sheep). 1 non compliant result for the sedative azaperon has been reported in pigs. Non-compliant results for anticoccidials were reported in bovines, pigs, poultry (most of the noncompliants in poultry were for anticoccidials), eggs and rabbits; the most commonly found substances were nicarbazin, lasalocid, and diclazuril. Antihelmintic residues were found in pigs, poultry, sheep and goats and milk (no findings in cattle or in aquaculture as in 2005; the most commonly found substance was oxfendazole. EN 12 EN

Carbadox and olaquindox residues have been reported in poultry and rabbits. They are substances whose authorisation for use as feed additives was withdrawn due to their genotoxic effects. In addition Germany has reported findings of cotinin and nicotin residues in poultry, pigs and eggs. The results for the controls carried out on environmental contaminants are also included in this report: Non-compliant results for heavy metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc and arsenic) were reported for bovines, pigs, sheep and goats, horses, aquaculture, milk, rabbit meat, farmed game, wild game and honey. Also residues of organochlorine compounds such as e.g. dioxins, PCBs, HCH, PCDD, PCDF were reported in bovines, horses, pigs, poultry, sheep and goats, aquaculture, milk, eggs, rabbits, farmed game and wild game. As well as organophosphorous compounds in sheep and goats, and milk. Mycotoxins have been found in bovines, horses and sheep (ochratoxin A and mycotoxin F) and milk (aflatoxin M1). Regarding animal products, in aquaculture most of non-compliant results were as in previous years for malachite green, found in fourteen Member States. The number of non-compliant results has increased from 45 targeted and 49 suspect in 2005 to 68 targeted and 101 suspect in 2006.Other non compliant results were for banned substances (chloramphenicol and nitrofurans one each), organochlorines, organophosphorous and heavy metals. In milk, most of the non-compliant results were for antibacterials followed by organochlorine compounds (PCBs) and aflatoxin M1; chloramphenicol was also found by four Member States. In eggs non-compliant results were mainly for anticoccidials, which are not authorised as feed additives for laying hens older than 16 weeks, but residues are often found in eggs, possibly due to cross-contamination of the feed in the feed mill, followed by antibacterials and organochlorine compounds. The use of antibacterials in bees is not authorised; several non-compliant results for antibacterials were reported in honey as well as for heavy metals and 1 for chloramphenicol and 1 for nitrofurans metabolites. OVERALL CONCLUSION Overall the picture shows a decrease of 3 % in the number of target samples taken for residue control together with an increase in the global number of non-compliant results. There is a continuing problem with residues of antimicrobial agents throughout the commodities tested. This highlights the importance of Member States utilising broad spectrum antimicrobial screening tests and taking appropriate corrective and preventive measures to decrease the prevalence of such residues. The banned substance chloramphenicol has been found in 13 Member States and in several food commodities. The issue of malachite green warrants highlighting as the prevalence rate of residues detected in 2006 increased relative to 2005. Again Member States are reminded to redouble their efforts to eliminate the use of this non-authorised substance in aquaculture. EN 13 EN

4. BOVINES, PIGS, SHEEP AND GOATS, HORSES AND POULTRY 4.1. PRODUCTION AND PERCENTAGE OF TARGETED SAMPLES: BOVINES, PIGS, SHEEP AND GOATS, HORSES Directive 96/23/EC establishes the minimum number of samples that have to be analysed for each food commodity in relation to the production figures for the previous year. As an example, the number of bovine samples that have to be analysed in 2007 is 0.4% of the number of bovine animals slaughtered in 2006. The number of animals slaughtered broken down by category is shown in Table 1. In all cases, the minimum number of samples is respected for the EU overall. Table 1. Number of animals slaughtered and targeted samples * Without Ro and Bg Bovines Production Targeted samples % Animals tested Minim. 96/23 2005 (EU 25) 27 900 727 139 152 0.49 2006(EU 25)* 27 459 448 122 715 0.46 0.4 2006 (EU 27) 27 674 217 132 675 0.48 Pigs 2005 (EU 25) 232 383 755 162 179 0.07 2006(EU 25)* 233 027 480 134 811 0.06 0.05 2006 (EU 25) 235 533 027 145 788 0.06 Sheep-goats 2005 (EU 25) 38 534 502 26 578 0.07 2006(EU 25)* 40 054 537 25 902 0.06 0.05 2006 (EU 25) 40 984 410 27 042 0.07 Horses 2005 (EU 25) 340 317 3 543 0.88 2006(EU 25)* 251 965 3 029 1.26 Not specified 2006 (EU 25) 268 099 3 451 1.29 EN 14 EN

4.2. PRODUCTION AND PERCENTAGE OF TARGETED SAMPLES FOR POULTRY According to Directive 96/23/EC, the minimum number of samples for each category of poultry must be one per 200 t of annual production, with a minimum of 100 samples for each group of substances where annual production in the category concerned is over 5 000 t. The graph below shows poultry production in 000 t in the Member States arranged by level of production and the number of targeted samples per 200 t of annual production. FR, IT, ES, PT, GR and LT, did not achieve the minimum number of 1 sample per 200 tons. Graph 1 ' 000 t 2000 Poultry: '000 t and targeted samples/200 t samples/200 t 7,39 8 1500 1000 500 3,10 2,18 2,13 2,08 1,84 0,971,000,900,95 1,081,09 1,01 1,15 0,94 1,12 1,12 1,251,25 1,36 1,03 0,96 0,52 1,60 2,70 4 0 FR UK ES IT DE PL NL HU BE PT CZ RO GR DK IE SE AT FI SK BG SI LT CY LV EE 0 For the EU as a whole, 60 983 targeted samples were taken in 2006 (57 420 without RO and BG), compared to 62 853 in 2005. The production increased from 10.3 million t in 2004 to 10.7 million t in 2005. Table 2. Poultry: production t and number of targeted samples Poultry (t) Production Targeted samples Samples tested/200t Minimum 2005 (EU 25) 10 358 202 62 853 1.21 2006(EU 25)* 10 537 087 57 420 1.08 1/200 t 2006(EU 27) 10 786 077 60 983 1.13 EN 15 EN

4.3. NON-COMPLIANT RESULTS 4.3.1. HORMONES Hormones include group A1 (stilbenes), A2 (thyrostats), A3 (steroids) and A4 (resorcylic acid lactones). There were no non-compliant (NC) results for group A1 (stilbenes and derivatives). In 2006 there have been no NC results for thyrostatic agents to continue with the tendency on the absence of NC for this group since 2000, except in 2005 when FR reported 8 NC. In terms of absolute results, in bovine 58 880 targeted samples were taken in 2006 for A1, A2, A3 and A4. 101 non-compliant results were found for A3 and 5 for A4 which means 0.18 % of non-compliant results for hormones in the EU, compared to 0.13 % in 2005. In pigs, 26 out of 11 751 were non-compliant for A3, total 27 440 targeted samples which means 0.09 % of non-compliant results for hormones in pigs in the EU (0.4 % in 2005). Specific substances and figures are given in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for both targeted and suspect sampling. Table 3: stilbenes (A1) Stilbenes (A1) Targeted samples Suspect samples 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovine 13 216 13 093 1 474 951 Pigs 6 473 6 502 127 38 Sheep and goats 579 565 4 Horses 46 111 2 Poultry 3 077 3 095 42 11 Aquaculture 201 237 10 2 Rabbit 96 69 3 7 Game 35 90 0 2 Table 4: antithyroid agents (A2) Antithyroid agents (A2) Targeted samples Suspect samples 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovines 4 966 5 638 85 185 Pigs 2 783 2 954 62 4 Sheep and goats 493 363 6 5 Horses 85 69 1 2 Poultry 1 183 1 022 36 0 Aquaculture 6 7 0 0 Rabbit 69 46 1 0 Game 20 26 3 0 EN 16 EN

Table 5: steroids (A3) Steroids (A3) Targeted samples Suspect samples 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovines 28 018 28 009 2 408 2 350 Pigs 11 229 11 751 440 83 Sheep and goats 1 161 1 156 21 10 Horses 157 193 6 3 Poultry 3 613 3 912 21 3 Aquaculture 364 378 31 0 Rabbit 93 94 4 0 Game 60 62 3 0 Table 6: steroids (A3) non-compliant results Species Substances MS NC Bovines 19-Norepitestosterone EE 1 Betamethasone IT 1 Boldenone DE 1 Boldenone-Alpha AT (2); DE (2); NL (1) 5 Dexamethasone IT (59);NL(2) 61 Target Epinandrolone IT 1 Estradiol-17-Alpha LT 1 Estradiol-17-Beta DE (1); FR(1); PL (1) 3 Nandrolone FR (2); UK (2) 4 Prednisolone IT 2 Progesterone UK 20 Testosterone-17-Alpha SI 1 TOTAL BOVINE TARGET: 101 Dexamethasone IT 54 Suspect Prednisolone IT 5 Estradiolbenzoat BE Progesterone BE 1* Testosteroncypionat BE TOTAL BOVINE SUSPECT: 60 Pigs Estradiol-17-Beta FR 1 Nandrolone CZ (2); DE (9); FR (2); PL (11) 24 Target Poultry Target Sheep/goats Target *BE: Same animal Progesterone SI 1 TOTAL PIGS TARGET 26 Ethinylestradiol IT 1 TOTAL POULTRY TARGET 1 Nandrolone UK 16 TOTAL SHEEP TARGET 16 EN 17 EN

Table 7: resorcilic acid lactones (A4) Resorcilic acid Targeted samples Suspect samples lactones (A4) 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovines 13 087 12 140 512 953 Pigs 6 558 6 233 139 50 Sheep and goats 615 588 10 7 Horses 86 95 1 2 Poultry 3 207 3 112 0 2 Aquaculture 152 82 0 0 Rabbit 38 75 3 0 Game 69 65 3 0 Table 8: resorcilic acid lactones (A4) non-compliant results Species Substances MS NC Bovines Taleranol (Beta-Zearalanol) DE (1); IT(1) 2 Target Zeranol (Alpha-Zearalanol) DE (1); UK (2) 3 TOTAL TARGET BOVINES: 5 EN 18 EN

4.3.2. CORTICOSTEROIDS With regard to corticosteroids, some Member States (e.g. Italy, the Netherlands and Denmark) include these in group A3 because they are steroids, whereas others allocate them to B2f (other pharmacologically active substances). Though e.g. dexamethasone, betamethasone and prednisolone can be legally used in the EU it is also known their growth promotion effects if used in cocktails with other illegal substances. The Member States that include all corticosteroids in group A argue that they then have more legal powers to respond to fight against illegal use. In 2006 an increase can be observed in the number of non-compliant results for corticosteroids target sampling compared to previous years (74 targeted and 95 suspect non-compliant results in 2006 compared to 60 targeted and 126 suspect in 2005). It is interesting that the same MS that found NC results for corticosteroids in 2005 have also found them in 2006 (IT, ES, FR, BE, NL), except AT that had no NC in 2005 and has 1 in 2006 and DE and PL that had 1 NC each in 2005 and 0 in 2006. Information on substances found and whether they are considered as A3 or B2f is given in Table 9. Table 9: corticosteroids non-compliant results Species Substances MS NC Bovines Target A3 Betamethasone IT 1 Dexamethasone IT (59);NL(2) 61 Prednisolone IT 2 B2f Dexamethasone ES (4); FR (1); BE* (1) 6 Methylprednisolone BE 1 Prednisolone BE* 3 Triamcinolonacetonid FR 1 TOTAL BOVINE TARGET: 74 Bovines Suspect A3 Dexamethasone IT 54 Prednisolone IT 5 B2f Dexamethasone AT(1); BE (1); ES (24) 26 Prednisolone BE (10) 10 TOTAL BOVINE SUSPECT: 95 *BE same animal EN 19 EN

4.3.3. BETA-AGONISTS The percentage of non-compliant results for Beta-agonists is calculated by comparing the total number of samples in bovines tested for Beta-agonists with the non-compliant results found. There was a decrease in the percentage of target non-compliant results for Beta-agonists in bovines from 0.08 % in 2005 to 0.06 % in 2006. In terms of absolute results, 28 targeted and 4 suspect non-compliant results were found in 2005 and 17 targeted and 87 suspects in bovines in 2006 (85 of them for salmeterol in NL); in pigs 8 targeted noncompliant results in 2005 and 10 targeted (0.07 %) and 3 suspect in 2006. No noncompliant results were found for sheep in 2006 compared to 4 targeted non-compliant results were found for sheep in PT in 2004 and 3 in 2005. Table 10: beta-agonists (A5) Beta-agonists (A5) Targeted samples Suspect samples 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovines 31 260 25 600 2 510 1 944 Pigs 14 924 13 561 399 262 Sheep and goats 2 068 1 688 29 27 Horses 290 342 2 6 Poultry 6 261 5 594 58 45 TOTAL 54 803 46 785 2 998 2 284 Table 11: beta-agonists (A5) non-compliant results Species Substances MS NC Bovines Target Clenbuterol ES (1); IT (6); PT (10) 17 TOTAL TARGET BOVINES: 17 Clenbuterol PT 1 Suspect Salbutamol BE 1 Salmeterol NL 85 TOTAL SUSPECT BOVINES: 87 Pigs Target Clenbuterol PT 10 TOTAL TARGET PIGS: 10 Suspect Clenbuterol PT 3 TOTAL SUSPECT PIGS: 3 EN 20 EN

4.3.4. PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES (A6) Group A6 lists compounds included in Annex IV to Council Regulation No 2377/90/EEC which are prohibited substances other than the ones covered by Directive 96/22/EC. For bovines, the percentage of non-compliant targeted results in the EU decreased from 0.07 % in 2005 to 0.06% in 2006. In absolute terms 11 NC were found in 2005 including chloramphenicol and nitrofurans and 9 in 2006 (chloramphenicol only). DE, FR and PL found non-compliant results for chloramphenicol in targeted sampling (see Table 13 for details). For pigs, the percentage of non-compliant for targeted samples has increased from 0.05 % in 2005 to 0.07 % in 2006. In absolute terms the number of non-compliant samples for A6 in pigs decreased from 10 in 2005 to 9 in 2006. Additionally 1 non-compliant result was found after suspect sampling for chloramphenicol and 1 for metronidazol. For poultry, in 2006, 15 target samples were found non-compliant for A6 (11 chloramphenicol, 3 nitrofurans and metabolites and 1 ronidazol) compared to 19 for targeted samples and 48 suspect sample for A6 in 2005 (see Table 13 for details). For sheep and goats 3 non-compliant results for target samples for chloramphenicol. Considering all food commodities (see also 5. animal products: aquaculture (FR 1), milk (DE 1, EE 1, LT 2, LV 1), Rabbit (IT 4), Honey (BG 1) 13 MS have found chloramphenicol residues in targeted and/or suspect samples. Table 12: prohibited substances Prohibited Targeted samples Suspect samples substances (A6) 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovines 14 023 15 073 4 014 3 510 Pigs 15 910 18 868 759 302 Sheep and goats 1 846 2 008 71 41 Horses 148 220 19 11 Poultry 14 767 16 888 1 108 152 TOTAL 46 694 53 057 5 971 4 016 The list of substances found for targeted and suspect samples is shown in the following table. EN 21 EN

Table 13: prohibited substances (A6) non-compliant results Species Substances MS NC Bovines Target Chloramphenicol DE (4); FR(4); PL (1) 9 TOTAL TARGET BOVINES: 9 Pigs Chloramphenicol AT (1); CZ (3); DE (4); GR (2); IT (1); NL (1); PL (1) 13 Target Metronidazol DE 1 Ronidazol FR 1 TOTAL TARGET PIGS: 15 Chloramphenicol AT 1 Suspect Metronidazol DE 1 TOTAL SUSPECT PIGS: 2 Poultry AMOZ BG 1 AOZ PL 1 Target Chloramphenicol BE (1); BG (1); DE (1); ES (2); FR (3); LV (1); NL (1); PL (1) 11 Nitrofurans PT 1 Ronidazol DE 1 TOTAL TARGET POULTRY: 15 Sheep/goats Target Chloramphenicol CZ (1); ES (2) 3 TOTAL TARGET SHEEP and GOAT: 3 EN 22 EN

4.3.5. ANTIBACTERIALS Antibacterials include all substances in group B1: sulfonamides, penicillins, quinolones, tetracyclines, etc. It should be pointed out that there are different ways of interpreting the results of the analysis for antimicrobials, depending on the analytical method used: Screening tests allow a high sample throughput and a high number of samples to be analysed in a relatively short time and they are designed to minimise the number of false negatives. When residues are found in a screening test, a confirmatory test shall be carried out, which normally involves a more sophisticated testing method, providing full or complementary information enabling the substance to be identified precisely and confirming that the MRL has been exceeded. These tests are intended to keep the number of false non-compliant results as low as possible. In the case of antibacterials, some of the screening tests are based on microbiological tests, whereby the sample is cultivated in different bacterial media. If, after the incubation period, the sample has inhibited the growth of the bacteria, it is considered that an antibacterial is present, but the specific substance is not identified. Given that this is a qualitative analytical method, a misinterpretation of the results cannot be ruled out, and some false positives can occur. Physico-chemical analysis provides information on the specific substance present in the sample. In some Member States and under specific control programmes, a positive result in a microbiological test is sufficient to reject the sample. This may mean that no confirmation by a physico-chemical method is carried out and there is thus no conclusive identification of the substance concerned. In other cases, a positive result in the screening test is confirmed by means of a physico-chemical test, and it is then possible to identify the substance and establish whether its concentration is above the MRL. Another possibility is to analyse directly with a physico-chemical test (i.e. sulfonamides analysis). In Germany, for instance, there are two different strategies. One is to fulfil the requirements of Directive 96/23/EC and for which all results obtained by inhibitor tests are confirmed by physico-chemical methods to check compliance with MRLs. For the second strategy, all analyses are carried out by inhibitor tests (e.g. n-plate test) and food for which positive results are obtained is considered unfit for human consumption according to national law. 19 625 samples for bovines, 224 379 for pigs, 3 975 for sheep, 55 for horses, 9 for poultry, 44 for aquaculture, 33 for rabbits and 5 for game were analysed under this scheme, giving rise to 79 positive inhibitor tests for bovines, 308 for pigs and 5 for sheep. With regard to suspect samples, NL had the highest absolute number of non-compliant results (343 for bovines, and 282 for pigs). In NL, in the event of positive results for inhibitor tests, investigations in the farm of origin are carried out to check whether the withdrawal period has been respected; also, carcasses are detained for 24 hours until the result is available. If it is positive for the inhibitor test, the sample is considered noncompliant, without the need for physico-chemical methods. This strategy explains the higher number of samples taken by the Netherlands compared to other Member States. In Belgium, during meat inspections in the slaughterhouses, carcasses considered suspect by the veterinary inspector are subject to an inhibitor test. If the results are noncompliant, the carcasses are considered unfit for human consumption. EN 23 EN

In the EU as a whole, non-compliant results for antibacterials (bovines, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and poultry) increased from 0.20% in 2005 to 0.30 % in 2006. The number of targeted samples in 2006 was 114 508 targeted samples + 248 043 inhibitor test in Germany, total 362 551 targeted samples compared to 395 132 targeted samples for bovines, pig, sheep and goats, horses and poultry in 2005. The number of targeted non-compliant results decreased from 1 019 in 2004 to 786 in 2005 and 702 in 2006. 67% of non-compliant targeted samples were found in pigs, 23% in bovines, 5% in sheep and goats, 4% in poultry and 0.1 % in horses. In the table below, the number of target and suspect samples taken for antibacterials in bovines, pigs, sheep, goats, horses and poultry is listed. In addition to this some MS have reported the number of samples taken for inhibitor tests as explained above. Table 14: antibacterials Antibacterials (B1) Targeted samples Suspect samples 2005 2006 2005 2006 Bovines 29 376 27 012 25 043 22 381 Pigs 80 950 58 884 23 158 16 825 Sheep and goats 12 320 11 715 5 407 Horses 924 585 18 33 Poultry 19 739 16 352 325 203 Total 143 309 114 548 48 549 39 849 Table 15: antibacterials non-compliant results Species Substances MS NC Bovines Amoxycillin FR 2 Antibacterials CY (1); LT (1); PL (3) 5 Target Benzylpenicillin, Penicillin G SE 2 Chlortetracyclin BE (1); FR (1); UK (2); IT (1) 5 Dihydrostreptomycin DE (2); ES (1); FR (1) 4 Enrofloxacin ES 1 Epi-Chlortetracycline UK 2 Flumequin FR 1 Gentamicin EE 1 Inhibitors DE 79 Marbofloxacin DE (1); FR (1) 2 Neomycin DE 1 Oxytetracyclin DE (1); DK (1); ES (6); FR (15); UK (1); IE (1); IT (2); PT (1) 28 Penicillin FR 1 Sulfadiazine IT 3 Sulfadimethoxin ES (1); FR (1); IT (5) 7 Sulfadoxin NL 1 Sulfamethazine IT 3 Sulfamethoxypyridazin ES (3); FR (1) 4 Sulphadimidine CY 2 EN 24 EN

Suspect PIGS Target Tetracyclin DE (2); ES (1); FR (4) 7 Tetracyclines LT 1 Tylosin FR 2 TOTAL TARGET BOVINES: 164 Amoxycillin BE 1 Ampicillin DK (4); IE (1) 5 Antibacterials IE (10); NL (343); PL (3) 356 Benzylpenicillin, AT (3); BE (5); DK (6) 14 Chlortetracyclin AT 2 Ciprofloxacin AT (1); IT (1) 2 Cloxacillin DK 4 Dihydrostreptomycin AT (4); DK (5) 9 Enrofloxacin IT 1 Erythromycin BE 1 Gentamicin DE (1); ES (1) 2 Inhibitors DE (23); ES (16) 39 Lincomycin DK 1 Marbofloxacin AT 2 Oxytetracyclin AT (2); DK (7); ES (4); UK (9); IE (5); IT (1) 28 Penicillin IE 1 Spectinomycin DK 1 Streptomycin DK 2 Sulfadimethoxin BE 1 Sulphadimidine AT 2 Tetracyclin AT (3); DE (1); DK (2) 6 Tilmicosin BE 4 Tylosin BE 8 TOTAL SUSPECT BOVINES: 492 Antibacterials IE (6); PL (6) 12 Benzylpenicillin, DE (1); DK (3); ES (1) 5 Chlortetracyclin ES (12); UK (3); GR (2); IE (2); IT (1) 20 Ciprofloxacin IT 2 Danofloxacin AT 1 Dihydrostreptomycin CZ (1); FR (1) 2 Doxycyclin BE (4); ES (9); NL (7) 20 Enrofloxacin DE (1); ES (4); IT (2) 7 Epi-Chlortetracycline UK 3 Inhibitors DE 308 Lincomycin CY (1); DK (1) 2 Marbofloxacin DE 1 Oxytetracyclin DE (1); EE (1); ES (28); FR (3); HU (1); IT (1); NL (10) 45 Penicillins (group) IE 1 Sulfadiazine BE (4); CY (2); DE (2); ES (7); FR (1); UK (2); GR (2); IE (1); NL (2) 23 Sulfadimethoxin BE (2); GR (1); IT (5) 8 Sulfamethazine BE (1); ES (5); PT (2) 8 Sulfamethoxazol NL 1 Sulphadimidine CY (2); DE (1) 3 Tetracyclin DE 4 TOTAL TARGET PIGS: 476 EN 25 EN

Suspect SHEEP/GOAT Target Suspect HORSES Target POULTRY Target Suspect Antibacterials NL 282 Chlortetracyclin DE (1); ES (4) 5 Doxycyclin BE (1); ES (2) 3 Gentamicin DE 1 Inhibitors DE (6); MT (8) 14 Oxytetracyclin AT (1); BE (1); DE (1); ES (8) 11 Penicillins (group) IE 1 Sulfadiazine CY (1); DE (2); ES (1) 4 Sulfadimethoxin BE 1 Sulfamethazine ES 1 Sulphadimidine CY 8 Tetracyclines ES 5 Trimethoprim DE 2 TOTAL SUSPECT PIGS: 338 Antibacterials IE 1 Chlortetracyclin ES 2 Enrofloxacin DE 1 Inhibitors DE 5 Oxytetracyclin ES (1); FR (1) 2 Streptomycin ES 2 Sulfadiazine CY (1); ES (16) 17 Sulfadimethoxin FR 4 Sulfamethazine ES 1 Sulfaquinoxaline FR 1 Sulphadimidine AT 1 TOTAL TARGET SHEEP/GOAT: 37 Antibacterials IE (1); NL (1) 2 Chlortetracyclin ES 1 Oxytetracyclin UK 1 Sulfamethazine ES 1 TOTAL SUSPECT SHEEP/GOAT: 5 Oxytetracyclin ES 1 TOTAL TARGET HORSES: 1 Antibacterials CY (1); PL (7) 8 Chlortetracyclin UK 1 Doxycyclin ES (2); GR (1); NL (1) 4 Enrofloxacin ES 6 Oxytetracyclin ES 3 Sulfaquinoxaline BE 1 Tetracyclin DE 3 TOTAL TARGET POULTRY: 28 Antibacterials PL 6 Enrofloxacin ES 1 Inhibitors ES 2 TOTAL SUSPECT POULTRY: 59 EN 26 EN

4.3.6. OTHER VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (B2) The following table shows the non-compliant results found for group B2, which includes other veterinary medicinal products for both targeted and suspect sampling. For anthelmintics (B2a) whereas in 2005 and 2004 ivermectins accounted for the main share of non-compliant results, in 2006 it was febendazole and its metabolites. The most non-compliant results were found in milk (fenbendazol and its metabolites, see chapter 5.2). For coccidiostats (B2b) the most found substance/specie is nicarbazin/poultry (see also results for eggs see chapter 5.3). No carbamates or pyrethroids (B2c) were found in 2006. Only 1 NC was reported for sedatives (B2d) in pigs. NSAIDs 27 NC were found in 6 MS including target and suspect samples in bovines (16), pigs (6), horses (1), poultry (2) and sheep and goats (2). All NC results for group B2f (other veterinary medicines) were for corticosteroids in 5 MS except for 1 for olaquindox in PT. Table 16: other veterinary medicinal products B2 Species Nr of samples Target Nr of NC Target Nr of samples Suspect Nr of NC Suspect Bovines 20 555 18 1 725 38 Pigs 28 859 10 127 Horses 864 2 18 Poultry 11 312 114 97 3 Sheep/Goats 6 439 4 43 TOTAL 68 029 148 2 010 41 Table 17: other veterinary medicinal products B2 non-compliant results Species Group Substances MS NC BOVINES B2b Coccidiostats Lasalocid DE 1 Target Monensin ES 1 B2b coccidiostats: 2 B2e NSAIDs Flunixin FR 2 Phenylbutazon DE 2 Tolfenaminsacid FR 2 B2e NSAIDs: 6 B2f others Dexamethasone ES (4); FR (1); BE* (1) 6 Methylprednisolone BE 1 Prednisolone BE* 3 Triamcinolonacetonid FR 1 B2f other vet. medicines: 10 TOTAL B2 BOVINES TARGET 18 Suspect B2e NSAIDs Flunixin BE 3 Meloxicam BE 1 EN 27 EN

Metamizole AT 2 Phenylbutazon UK 1 Tolfenaminsacid BE 3 B2e NSAIDs: 10 B2f others Dexamethasone AT (1); BE (1); ES (24) 26 Prednisolone BE 10 B2f other vet. medicines: 36 TOTAL B2 BOVINES SUSPECT 46 PIGS B2a anthelmintics Eprinomectin IT 1 Target Levamisol DE 1 B2a anthelmintics: 2 B2b coccidiostats Lasalocid DE 1 B2b coccidiostats 1 B2d sedatives Azaperon DE 1 B2d sedatives 1 B2e NSAIDs Diclofenac FR 6 B2e NSAIDs: 6 TOTAL B2 PIGS TARGET 10 HORSES B2b coccidiostats Monensin SK 1 Target B2b coccidiostats 1 B2e NSAIDs Phenylbutazon UK 1 B2e NSAIDs: 1 TOTAL B2 HORSES TARGET 2 POULTRY B2a anthelmintics Oxfendazol UK 2 B2a anthelmintics: 2 Target B2b coccidiostats Diclazuril BE (2); CY (3); PT (1) 6 Lasalocid BE (1); CY (1); PL (1) 3 Nicarbazin AT (1); BE (5); CZ (2); ES (4); UK (27); IE (13); IT (8); NL (1); PL (2); PT 99 (36) Robenidin BE 1 Salinomycin MT 1 B2b coccidiostats 110 B2e NSAIDs Sodiumsalicylate NL 2 B2e NSAIDs 2 B2f others Olaquindox PT 1 B2f other vet. medicines: 1 TOTAL B2 POULTRY TARGET 115 Suspect B2b coccidiostats Diclazuril CY 1 Nicarbazin IE 1 Robenidin BE 1 B2b coccidiostats 3 TOTAL B2 POULTRY SUSPECT 3 SHEEP/GOATS B2a anthelmintics Ivermectin UK 1 Target Oxfendazol IE 1 B2a anthelmintics 2 B2e NSAIDs Flunixin AT 1 Sodiumsalicylate LT 1 B2e NSAIDs 2 TOTAL B2 SHEEP/GOAT TARGET 4 EN 28 EN

4.3.7. OTHER SUBSTANCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS (B3) The following table shows the non-compliant results found for group B3, which includes other substances and contaminants for targeted and suspect sampling. Table 18: other substances and environmental contaminants B3 Species Nr of samples Target Nr of NC Target Nr of samples Suspect Nr of NC Suspect Bovines 9 161 63 144 90 Pigs 12 061 29 739 49 Horses 1 224 115 18 10 Poultry 5 706 29 376 215 Sheep/Goats 3 416 28 46 TOTAL 31 568 264 1 323 364 Table 19: other substances and environmental contaminants non-compliant results Species Group Substances MS NC BOVINES B3a organochlorine Dioxins/Dioxins like PCBs BE 1 Pentachlorophenol DE 1 Target B3a organochlorine 2 AT (1); CZ (5); DE (1); DK B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd (1); HU (7); IT (1); LT (3); LV 48 (1); NL (25); RO (4); SI (3) Lead Pb DE (1); IT (5); NL (1) 7 Zinc Zn ES 4 B3c heavy metals 59 B3d aflatoxins Aflatoxin B1 IT 2 B3d aflatoxins 2 TOTAL B3 BOVINES TARGET 63 CZ (8); ES (10); NL (1); FR Suspect B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd (2); MT(1); PL (1); PT (58); 88 RO (6); SI (1) Lead Pb ES (1); FR (1); 2 B3c heavy metals 90 TOTAL B3 BOVINES SUSPECT 90 PIGS B3a organochlorine DDE, pp'- ES 1 Target DDT: Sum DDT, DDE, DDD DE 1 HCH-Gamma (lindane) IE 1 PCB 138 DE 1 PCB 153 DE 1 PCB 180 DE 1 Pentachlorphenol DE 1 B3a organochlorine 7 EN 29 EN

B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd DE (1); ES (2); HU (2); PL (2) 7 Lead Pb DE (1); ES (3); IT (3) 7 Mercury Hg CY (1); ES (1) 2 Zinc Zn ES 2 B3c heavy metals 18 B3d mycotoxins Ochratoxin A CY (1); PL (3) 4 B3d aflatoxins 4 TOTAL B3 PIGS TARGET 29 Suspect B3a organochlorine Dioxins BE 21 PCB sum CZ 1 B3a organochlorine 22 B3c heavy metals Lead Pb ES (2) CY (1); GR (1); 4 Mercury Hg CY 3 Cadmium Cd HU (1); 1 B3c heavy metals 8 B3d mycotoxins Zearalenone (Mycotoxin F) ES 4 B3d mycotoxins 4 TOTAL B3 PIGS SUSPECT 48 HORSES B3a organochlorine PCB 153 DE 1 PCB 180 DE 1 B3a organochlorine 2 Target AT (1); DK (5); FR (2); IT (12); MT (1); PL (1); PT (58); B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd 97 RO (6); SI (1); UK (1); GR (7); PL (2) Lead Pb ES (1); FR (1); IT (5); UK (2); IT (2) 11 Zinc Zn ES 1 B3c heavy metals 109 B3d mycotoxins Ochratoxin A CY 1 B3d mycotoxins 1 TOTAL B3 HORSES TARGET 113 Suspect B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd ES (6); MT (1) 7 Lead Pb ES 3 B3c heavy metals: 10 TOTAL B3 HORSES SUSPECT 10 POULTRY B3a organochlorine DDE, pp'- ES 3 Dioxins BE 1 Target PCB 138 DE 1 PCB 153 DE 1 PCB sum IT 1 B3a organochlorine 7 B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd FR (4); HU (1); IT (12) 17 Lead Pb CY (1); GR (1); IT (2) 4 B3c heavy metals 21 B3f others Nicotin DE 1 B3f others 1 TOTAL B3 POULTRY TARGET 29 Suspect B3a organochlorine Dioxins BE 11 EN 30 EN

B3a organochlorine 11 B3d mycotoxins Aflatoxin B1 IT 1 B3d mycotoxins 1 B3f others Cotinin DE 4 Nicotin DE 199 B3f others 203 TOTAL B3 POULTRY SUSPECT 215 SHEEP/GOATS B3a organochlorine DDE, pp'- ES 1 HCH-Beta BG (1); ES (1) 2 Target HCH-Gamma (lindane) FR 1 PCB 153 ES 1 PCB 180 ES 1 PCB sum FR 1 B3a organochlorine 7 B3b organophosph. Diazinon ES (1); IE (1) 2 B3a organophosphorous 2 B3c heavy metals Cadmium Cd DE (2); UK (1); GR (7); PL (2) 12 Lead Pb DE (1); UK (2); IT (2) 5 Zinc Zn ES 1 B3c heavy metals 18 B3d mycotoxins Ochratoxin A CY 1 B3d mycotoxins 1 TOTAL B3 SHEEP/GOATS TARGET 28 EN 31 EN

4.3.8. OVERALL DISTRIBUTION OF NON-COMPLIANT RESULTS IN THE EU BOVINES, PIGS, SHEEP, GOATS, HORSES, POULTRY The boxes below show the overall distribution of non-compliant results in the EU. With regard to targeted samples, 52% of the non-compliant results were non-compliant for antibacterials, 20% for environmental contaminants, 11 % for hormones, 10% for veterinary medicinal products, 3 % for prohibited substances and 2 % for Beta-agonists. Graph 2 Overall distribution of non-compliant results (targeted sampling) % 60 50 52 40 30 20 10 0 20 11 10 3 2 Antibacterials Contaminants Hormones Vet.medicines Prohibited B-agonists For suspect samples, 60% were non-compliant for antibacterials, 26% for environmental contaminants, 6 % for Beta-agonists, 4 % for hormones, 3% for veterinary medicinal products and 0 for prohibited substances. The number of non-compliant results after suspect sampling is not indicative of the prevalence of non-compliance since investigations of one single case of a non-compliant targeted sample may imply many suspect samples taken in the same farm. Graph 3 Overall distribution of non-compliant results (suspect sampling) % 60 60 50 40 30 26 20 10 0 6 4 3 Antibacterials Contaminants B-agonists Hormones Vet medicines Prohibited substances 0 EN 32 EN

The box below shows the overall distribution of non-compliant results, including targeted and suspect samples. Graph 4 % 60 50 40 57 Overall distribution of non-compliant results (targeted+suspect sampling) 30 20 10 0 23 8 7 4 Antibacterials Contaminants Hormones Vet medicines B-agonists The following boxes show the pattern of the overall distribution for targeted sampling in 2004 (EU 25), 2005 (EU 25) and 2006 (EU 27) with no significant changes on the overall distribution of NC. Graph 5 Overall distribution non-compliant results (targeted sampling) 2004-2005-2006 % 60 51 50 53 2004 2005 2006 40 20 0 25 21 20 14 10 11 9 8 10 Antibacterials Contaminants Hormones Vet.medicines Prohibited subs. 3 4 3 3 2 2 B-agonists EN 33 EN

5. ANIMAL PRODUCTS 5.1. AQUACULTURE The number of samples to be collected each year must be at least 1 per 100 t of annual production. In 2005, EU production was 596 558 t (compared to 583 814 t in 2004).9 099 targeted samples were taken (8 289 targeted samples in 2005) and 355 suspect samples in 2006 were collected (1 005 in 2005). In the graph below, the columns show aquaculture production in 000 t in 2005. Member States are classified by volume of production. The numbers at the top represent the number of targeted samples per 100 t. LU had no production and took no samples. PT, LT, SI, MT, LV, EE and SK did not achieve the minimum number of samples. Graph 6 Aquaculture: '000 of t and target samples/100 t Thousands of t 150 120 90 60 30 0 15,27 3,83 6,98 5,91 9,20 5,99 5,37 4,29 3,38 1,621,87 1,02 9,52 4,00 3,96 2,55 1,93 1,06 0,67 1,04 0,34 0,330,100,130,11 0,52 0,00 UK GR IT ES FR PL DK DE CZ IE FI NL RO SE HU PT CY AT BG LT BE SI MT LV EE SK LU 20 15 10 5 0 Target samples/100 t There was a decrease in the number of non-compliant results in 2006 (81 target and 101 suspect) compared to 2005 (95 targeted and 96 suspect) with 2% increase in production and 10 % decrease in the number of targeted samples. In 2006 there were 2 non-compliant results for banned substances targeted, 2 for antibacterials, 4 for organochlorines, 1 for organophosphorous, 4 for heavy metals. Most non-compliant results were as in previous years for malachite green (68 targeted and 101 suspect compared to 45 targeted and 49 suspect in 2005). Non-compliant results for malachite green were found in 14 Member States. Malachite green is a chemical pharmacologically active substance whose use as a veterinary medicinal product for food-producing animals is not authorised in the Community. EN 34 EN